Recently the L.A. Times stated that it would no longer print letters that made blatantly false claims that Congress and the office of the President were beneficiaries of special exemptions not available to others when it came to the ACA. When explaining this policy they included this statement:
Why? Simply put, this objection to the president’s healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there’s no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.
This caused quite a stir among certain kinds of conservatives, of course. So they addressed it a few days later. In the comments section on that piece here’s a couple of examples.
OK, so I have a BS in Geography and a Minor in Climatology. Know something, NO ONE IS DENYING THAT CLIMATE CHANGES. You must have gone to a government school (unionized child abuse center). Can’t you write an accurate, coherent title to your article? It is this sort of sloppy thinking by people who know nothing about climate that causes intelligent people to question the religion of 1) Global Warming; 2) Climate Change or 3) Climate Disruption. I am quite certain that the catch all phrase will change many more times in our lifetime.
What is being questioned is whether man is in any way causing global climate changes. That remains to be seen. Are CO2 levels rising? Yes. Is that attributable to man? Probably a large part of that rise is. Is the world getting warme?. Not in the last 15 years and that is the crux of the matter. In addition, hurricane strength has not increased, tornado severity has not increased, serious snow storms have not increased, etc.
The “scientists” studying climate can not get a grant unless their grant begins with, “Given the fact that man is causing the earth to become hotter than the interior of the sun by next Wednesday, I propose to study Aardvark mating habits in Mongolian zoos to show that man is the cause of…………………..”
Immediately followed by…
Of course no one is denying that climate changes and that man has a role. This is just the same straw man that Liberals always construct.
The only question is about the sensitivity of the feedback factor, primarily from clouds. Warmist say this is a positive factor multiplying feedback by 3x, yet in reality it appears that the feedback is actually negative. Tellingly, in the most recent report AR5, the IPCC fails to estimate a most likely value for this factor– for the first time since its founding.
The inconvenient truth: No positive feedback = no catastrophe = end of global warming scam.
So the first letter claims that man has no role in warming and the one right after it denies that anyone is actually claiming that. Both of them make factually false claims. Both of them imply a hoax or conspiracy. Then they wonder why a newspaper would refuse to publish letters like theirs.